What is it?

Well, this thread seems to have devolved into a normal abortion thread. Oh, well. It was bound to happen. Anyway, for the only response it seems I got...

Oh course I have. I assumed most people reading my post would care about human life. Like I said, if you don't, there's something wrong with you.

A woman that is pregnant can wait just a few months. Is that so hard?

Can you tell me more about these differences? Why are they relevant to the topic at hand? If I am biologically dependant on dialysis is it okay to kill me because the dialysis machine thinks I'm inconvinient?

Well, the question asked there is this thing called a hypothetical. It's not saying someone is likely to throw their baby in the street once it's born. It's asking whether it's right for that to be done, regardless of the circumstances.

About consent: The woman (most of the time, except in the case of rape) has consented to pregnancy. Also, her not signing a paper that says, "I consent to completing my pregnancy..." (to make it more concrete) does not make it okay to kill. Assuming of course, that you answer the above question with: A human. The answer to that at the moment, though, it out of the scope of my response.

Why is there no relevance? I'm pretty sure I would have a much worse punishment for slicing up someone than breaking a clock into twenty pieces.

What's the difference? One's human. Even dead, it wouldn't be acceptable to dice the person.

It seems you have this all figured out, but I would like to understand what you mean by this. Could you provide a little detail as to why you think I am presuming the only reason deadly force should be used is to save lives. Could you also tell me how getting an abortion is self defence?



Oh, and one statement or answer at a time makes things much easier, this whole multi-quote thing is complicated...

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly what the whole is about.

 

One second after fertilization, should a human ovum get the rights and protections of all humans?

 

yes of course for it's a human ovum

ovum |ˈōvəm| noun Biology
a mature female reproductive cell, esp. of a human or other animal, that can divide to give rise to an embryo usually only after fertilization by a male cell.


the fact a female and a male human are part of the creation of the ovum should show some democratic aspect of the ovum in question.

 

That is the question of when does it become a human, which is basically the same question as the first one. Now, in the interest of discussion, I'm not going to answer it.

 

The "pro-lifers" rarely want to talk about conception....just late term abortions....for that very reason.

Even they see the silliness in looking at a cell a few microns across and saying "That's a human being who should be given habeus corpus and due process rights".

 

Not at all, even if the fetus (it is not a baby until born) were to be given full rights etc it would still not make abortion illegal based on the current self defense laws a woman would be able to use deadly force in order to remove what is causing her injury.

 

Glad to try and help

Oh I care about human life, I just don't think human life is that special. I also care about the woman who decides that an abortion is the right thing.

Would you do the same if you had something inside of you injuring you without your consent even if a doctor told you it would stop after about nine months - even though the injuries caused would remain.

biological dependency - Dependent on a single person in order to sustain life through a 'living' connection
social dependency - Dependent on any person in order to sustain life with no 'living' connection

It's relevance is in your comment - "Person B (let's call her Mary): Let me ask you a hypothetical. Say a woman is raped and the baby is born. Would it be okay for her to kill it?" - The woman who has been raped and birthed does not have to kill in order to remove the 'problem'.

You being on a dialysis machine does not make you biological dependent, there would be many other dialysis machines you could be hooked up to that makes you socially dependent.

A person doesn't need to throw their child out onto the street there are other immediate avenues available should she wish to remove the child. Whether it is right or wrong comes down individual perspective, much like abortion.

No she has not, sexual intercourse is a separate item from pregnancy, she may be consenting to the risk of pregnancy however we do not expect people to suffer injury simply for taking a risk.
Consent to sex is simply the woman consenting to the man, allowing him to insert his penis into her vagina .. the possible resulting zef, if it is deemed a separate individual with rights, would be required to gain it's own consent from the woman . .after all just because a woman consents to one individual does not mean she consents to another separate individual does it?

Of course a zef is human, but please explain how the zef would receive rights greater than any other person, after all you are alluding to the zef being able to reside inside of another individual without consent, can you name any other circumstance where that would be allowed?

A clock is not a person, neither is a pre-viability zef.

Happens quite a lot on the autopsy table.

Based on your comment - "Now, I will admit this doesn't work in the case where the mother's life is in danger. That goes back to the question, "Is it okay to kill someone in order to save another life?" " I made the assumption this is what you were inferring, if that is incorrect then I apologize.

There is a whole topic on that very subject here - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=320356

It can be, but it does tend to keep the discussion on track.

 

The question will always arise as to what is considered a "hardship case." The line will be drawn differently for every person. IAC, the public overwhelmingly supports RvW and does not want it repealed.

"Consequences" equal "punishment." In this case, consequences equal punishment for choosing to have sex. Do you believe that choosing to have sex is equivalent to "crime, sin, and moral breakdown"?

What it is is an interesting question for discussion but meaningless when it comes to determining abortion rights. Inside the woman's body is the crucial question, as she has every right and every opportunity to make a decision with or without the approval of government or society. Society has tried before to regulate the inner workings of women's bodies by criminalizing abortion, it was a dismal failure. Women will make the choice regardless of law, so it behooves all of us to make that choice a safe one.

 

I disagree, it hinges on the status of consent.

Urm, wrong, I care a lot about abortion and about finding realistic ways to reduce them .. making it illegal is not the answer.

As well as all the limitations .. such as not being able to use another person in order to sustain its own life without consent of that person.
Such as the person it is using have the right to protect themselves from bodily harm by use of deadly force.

Unless of course you are advocating that a zef be granted rights that exceed those of any other person?

 

Consequences and punishment are not the same thing. If I say that "paying a lot debt is the consequences of using a credit card recklessly", that's not the same thing as saying, "people who use credit cards are idiots who deserve to be in debt!"

My argument against abortion is that women are responsible for keeping the fetus alive in their body, because the fetus only exists as a result (ie, consequence) of their choice to have sex. I'm not saying that "women had premarital sex, they deserve to pay the price for their sins by staying pregnant".

Growing up and taking responsibility for the results of your own actions is not "punishment". People who think otherwise have entitlement issues.

 

Notice even Sam uses the analogy of "payment".

Women must PAY for engaging in sex and that payment is getting pregnant and staying that way to term.

The very subtext is still "Women must be forced to make recompense for their dirty little lusts by having a baby!"

 

That's not what I meant to say. I even said that I don't believe that women should be punished for sex. Here's why I used the analogy of paying debts. If somebody consents to using a credit card, they can't just "withdraw consent" and not pay debt, just because "they don't feel like paying debt". They consented to paying debt by using a credit card. Consent doesn't depend on whether or not somebody feels like doing something, especially if their actions affect other people. People got to grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.

You are being very dishonest by taking what I said out of context. Pro-lifers are not dishonest. YOU are dishonest.

 

By using a credit card, a person is making a promise (by contract) to pay the debt. No such promise is made by having sex.

 

Sometimes consequences and punishment ARE the same thing. When you say a woman must accept the consequences of having sex, you really mean that a woman must accept that punishment.

You really are saying that.

Those who think they can decide for others how that responsibility will be exercised have entitlement issues. Abortion is a responsible act taken by the women who know most about the circumstances involved. Anyone interfering with a private decision made by another definitely has entitlement issues.

 

I never said, "women who have premarital sex deserve to pay the price for their sins by staying pregnant". Quote my comment where I said that.

 

Prove it.

 

That's what it means when you say the fetus only exists because of the woman's actions so she is obligated to maintain it within her body. That's what you're really saying no matter how much you deny it.

 

I believe that abortion should also be illegal for married women. If my motivation for making abortion illegal was to "punish women for their sexually immoral behavior", then why wouldn't I support a married woman's right to an abortion?

 

If its not a baby but a simple mass of cells, then abortion is no different than excising a tumor, and there is no issue. If you care about abortion, then you must think there is more to it than a simple excision of some random cells.

Ridiculous. Did the baby consent to being born and placed in that woman, or did the woman consent to getting pregnant? There are consequences to sex, even with protection there is the risk of getting pregnant. You play the odds and lose, then you pay the price. The baby is the victim, not the woman.

 

It was you who compared a woman getting pregnant to a "human failure". Being human is not an excuse for anything.

For some reason, there are people that think sex is above morality, immune from the law, and should be devoid of consequences. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant and create a life, then you have to live with the consequences.

No, you are wrong, whether the baby is a human being or not is the single item that the entire issue turns upon. If it is not a human, then there is no issue.

If it is a human being then the baby deserves representation. Over 90% of abortions are due to "convenience" issues. We do not kill people because they interfere with our career or education, we do not kill one of our children because we decide we have too many children or we desire a better financial situation or because they are a burden on our marriage. If the baby is a human, then it must be treated like a human of any age.

Its location is a mitigating factor (for example, when the pregnancy is a risk to the life of the mother) but it does not demote the baby to non-human status.

 

To whom would such a promise be made?

 

Only if the baby threatens the life of the mother. And teh baby is an involuntary participant. Claiming self-defense is frankly a stupid arguement.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it a human being? Unknown. At 21 weeks its definitely a human, how much earlier is it a human is open to debate.

 

The unborn.

 

When the woman has sex, there is no "unborn" to make a promise to.

 

The unborn only exist as a consequence of the woman's choice to have sex.